What's bizarre about receiving pushback when you attack, through rewriting, a religion's founding documents and closely held beliefs?

Does your definition of decency know no limits?

So who rewrote what? Did religions "attack through rewriting" factual history?

There are many many religious writings, what you imply is that they are all attacking each other and "reality" (since they each "rewrite" so to speak what the others writing says to be truth). And it appears you are saying their attacking each other, or their feeling attacked by the other peoples or religions writings is acceptable or at least to be expected.

But of course that is in fact what often happens.

And regarding decency and its limits, I expect that my definition of decency has, at the very least, different limits than yours and others.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

What's bizarre about receiving pushback when you attack, through rewriting, a religion's founding documents and closely held beliefs?

Does your definition of decency know no limits?

So who rewrote what? Did religions "attack through rewriting" factual history?

There are many many religious writings, what you imply is that they are all attacking each other and "reality" (since they each "rewrite" so to speak what the others writing says to be truth). And it appears you are saying their attacking each other, or their feeling attacked by the other peoples or religions writings is acceptable or at least to be expected.

But of course that is in fact what often happens.

And regarding decency and its limits, I expect that my definition of decency has, at the very least, different limits than yours and others.

Tugg

The "rewriting" was by the author of the stage play "The most fabulous story ever told" which is a parody of biblical texts and beliefs deriving from them. It constitutes an attack on such beliefs.

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

What's bizarre about receiving pushback when you attack, through rewriting, a religion's founding documents and closely held beliefs?

Does your definition of decency know no limits?

There are hundreds(maybe thousands) of examples of Christians committing acts of violence against lgbt people not to mention the fact that many branches of Christianity considers homosexuality to be an illness that should be cured(ask Mike Pence) however a small-time theatrical production is construed as an attack.

As for my limits of decency, I have no issue with well-placed satire, regardless of the target.

If the theater company has a right to free speech, then so too do Christians have the right to speak out against such a portrayal. Of course it is going to offend people's deeply held beliefs - do you believe then that they should have no recourse to complain? For the most part, Christians show remarkable restraint when things like this happen. They aren't threatening anyone are they?

I'm also curious as to why Christianity is seen as "fair game" for satire and verbal attacks, when there is a clear reticence on the part of many of those same people to insult or attack other religions. That Huffington Post article would be written very differently if the religion concerned was Islam or Sikhism.

If the theater company has a right to free speech, then so too do Christians have the right to speak out against such a portrayal. Of course it is going to offend people's deeply held beliefs - do you believe then that they should have no recourse to complain? For the most part, Christians show remarkable restraint when things like this happen. They aren't threatening anyone are they?

I'm also curious as to why Christianity is seen as "fair game" for satire and verbal attacks, when there is a clear reticence on the part of many of those same people to insult or attack other religions. That Huffington Post article would be written very differently if the religion concerned was Islam or Sikhism.

There is a whole lot of generalizing in your comments, but I'm going to try to respond anyway.

- Yes, Christians have every right to respond.- "They aren't threatening anyone, are they?" Well, depends on which Christians you are talking about. Given the antipathy displayed by fundamentalist Christians, who openly oppose feminism and LGBTQ rights, I'd say "they" are pretty damned threatening. And they need to be called on it.- "...when there is a clear reticence on the part of many of those same people to insult or attack other religions." I think there's a lot going on in this statement. Let me tell you the first thing that came to mind:

I don't ridicule Buddhism or Islam because I have no cultural connection to it. I have no interaction or history with those religions. I feel very comfortable criticizing or satirizing Christianity - especially fundamentalism - because I am intimately connected with it. I was raised as a Southern Baptist and I feel comfortable criticizing, even ridiculing some of their practices.

And by the way, there is plenty of criticism lobbed toward Muslims, Buddhists, even atheists. So I don't embrace your view that Christians are particularly persecuted or that it's okay to ridicule Christians but not other religions.

"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."- R.M. Rilke

I'm also curious as to why Christianity is seen as "fair game" for satire and verbal attacks, when there is a clear reticence on the part of many of those same people to insult or attack other religions. That Huffington Post article would be written very differently if the religion concerned was Islam or Sikhism.

Everything is fair game for satire, especially religions that seek to oppress others and advocate publicly to strip individuals of their rights.

They probably saw "The Book Of Mormon" and thought they could do the same thing with The Bible. It will probably not be that great.

In The United States, we have separation of church and state and freedom of speech. This play is not directly harming anyone. It is not yelling fire in a crowded theater, it is not murdering someone based on belief. A few in opposition to this play might but probably not. Instead of demanding the play be shut down because a few people find it offensive, try doing the American thing and let them put it on and those few people ignore it.

What's bizarre about receiving pushback when you attack, through rewriting, a religion's founding documents and closely held beliefs?

Does your definition of decency know no limits?

So who rewrote what? Did religions "attack through rewriting" factual history?

There are many many religious writings, what you imply is that they are all attacking each other and "reality" (since they each "rewrite" so to speak what the others writing says to be truth). And it appears you are saying their attacking each other, or their feeling attacked by the other peoples or religions writings is acceptable or at least to be expected.

But of course that is in fact what often happens.

And regarding decency and its limits, I expect that my definition of decency has, at the very least, different limits than yours and others.

Tugg

The "rewriting" was by the author of the stage play "The most fabulous story ever told" which is a parody of biblical texts and beliefs deriving from them. It constitutes an attack on such beliefs.

How does parody constitute "an attack?"

Is anyone being forced to attend this play? Is the theater company breaking into churches and interrupting the sermons with this play?

I definitely think you are, at the very least, misapplying the word "attack". Otherwise anything that comments on something, or your opinion, or if I play devils advocate in a conversation, or a child makes an observation (and any of this could be in written form, online or otherwise) can be defined as an attack on whatever is being commented on or discussed or mentioned etc.

Anything can be an attack, You might think I am attacking you with my comments by your definition, but I am just having a conversation.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

I definitely think you are, at the very least, misapplying the word "attack". Otherwise anything that comments on something, or your opinion, or if I play devils advocate in a conversation, or a child makes an observation (and any of this could be in written form, online or otherwise) can be defined as an attack on whatever is being commented on or discussed or mentioned etc.

Anything can be an attack, You might think I am attacking you with my comments by your definition, but I am just having a conversation.

I definitely think you are, at the very least, misapplying the word "attack". Otherwise anything that comments on something, or your opinion, or if I play devils advocate in a conversation, or a child makes an observation (and any of this could be in written form, online or otherwise) can be defined as an attack on whatever is being commented on or discussed or mentioned etc.

Anything can be an attack, You might think I am attacking you with my comments by your definition, but I am just having a conversation.

Tugg

What you are really talking about is "context', and it is very important in determining intent.

When an author, screenwriter, playwright, dramatist writes for a wide audience he/she has a motive. It is possible for the motive to be entirely benign, merely to entertain through comedy, music, farce, etc.

In the case we are discussing I think the motive was to heap ridicule on a group or groups that can be easily distinguished from the one or ones represented by the playwright/author. It is an attack directed narrowly and specifically against the sensibilities of others, on their cherished beliefs.

Yes, there are no doubt other words that can be substituted for the one I chose -- attack -- and still convey much the same meaning that I intended.

Feel free to make the substitution. But please don't attribute your revision to me. I stand by my word choice.

Thanks, and Shalom.

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

I definitely think you are, at the very least, misapplying the word "attack". Otherwise anything that comments on something, or your opinion, or if I play devils advocate in a conversation, or a child makes an observation (and any of this could be in written form, online or otherwise) can be defined as an attack on whatever is being commented on or discussed or mentioned etc.

Anything can be an attack, You might think I am attacking you with my comments by your definition, but I am just having a conversation.

Tugg

What you are really talking about is "context', and it is very important in determining intent.

When an author, screenwriter, playwright, dramatist writes for a wide audience he/she has a motive. It is possible for the motive to be entirely benign, merely to entertain through comedy, music, farce, etc.

In the case we are discussing I think the motive was to heap ridicule on a group or groups that can be easily distinguished from the one or ones represented by the playwright/author. It is an attack directed narrowly and specifically against the sensibilities of others, on their cherished beliefs.

Yes, there are no doubt other words that can be substituted for the one I chose -- attack -- and still convey much the same meaning that I intended.

Feel free to make the substitution. But please don't attribute your revision to me. I stand by my word choice.

Thanks, and Shalom.

Revision? You are stating "I think" (you think) as your justification to divine the authors intent and motive. Who is "revising"? I don't know the authors intent, nor am I trying too. That is fine and it is fine for you to stand by your point but to then assign me as the one revising anything is at the least hypocritical.

Millions of writings and works of art are out there and I do not and cannot always know the true motive or intent behind their being created. Many do not like what is created and other times many do appreciate what the works bring about in them, the impact of a piece within the person viewing it. We can never view a work exactly as it was created to be because we all bring different life experiences and biases into our interpretation. That is just the way it is for the human experience. And we may dislike or hate something but it may bring something important to the fore internally (or otherwise). I am not defending the work, just saying it has much right to exist as any before it, and people will judge or enjoy or condemn it differently. That people do so, individually or as a group, does not mean a work was created as an attack or anything else.

Religions are created as a way for people to come together with one view or concept or understanding of life, they are usually not created as an attack on others, but people of other religions will often view a competing religion as an attack on their faith and views even if it is not. How is any religion not an attack other religions when it "battles" to occupy the same space in ones life? But yet the truth is religions are or at least should be attacks on another.

So accuse my of revision or whatever, I will say simply that I am not doing that. I am simply trying to communicate my argument to you.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Yes, there are no doubt other words that can be substituted for the one I chose -- attack -- and still convey much the same meaning that I intended.

Feel free to make the substitution. But please don't attribute your revision to me. I stand by my word choice.

Thanks, and Shalom.

Revision? You are stating "I think" (you think) as your justification to divine the authors intent and motive. Who is "revising"? I don't know the authors intent, nor am I trying too. That is fine and it is fine for you to stand by your point but to then assign me as the one revising anything is at the least hypocritical.

Millions of writings and works of art are out there and I do not and cannot always know the true motive or intent behind their being created. Many do not like what is created and other times many do appreciate what the works bring about in them, the impact of a piece within the person viewing it. We can never view a work exactly as it was created to be because we all bring different life experiences and biases into our interpretation. That is just the way it is for the human experience. And we may dislike or hate something but it may bring something important to the fore internally (or otherwise). I am not defending the work, just saying it has much right to exist as any before it, and people will judge or enjoy or condemn it differently. That people do so, individually or as a group, does not mean a work was created as an attack or anything else.

Religions are created as a way for people to come together with one view or concept or understanding of life, they are usually not created as an attack on others, but people of other religions will often view a competing religion as an attack on their faith and views even if it is not. How is any religion not an attack other religions when it "battles" to occupy the same space in ones life? But yet the truth is religions are or at least should be attacks on another.

So accuse my of revision or whatever, I will say simply that I am not doing that. I am simply trying to communicate my argument to you.

Tugg

I did not accuse you of having made a revision. I don't know how you made that leap from what I wrote.

I suggested that, if you thought my use of the word "attack" was inappropriate, that you could substitute some other word that was more to your liking.

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.